Main menu

Post navigation

This week on Limited Resources Marshall and Luis dive deep on the latest Magic set: Hour of Devastation! That’s right, it’s time once again for the world famous LR Set Review! Every single common and uncommon is dissected with precision in order to prepare you for your prerelease and subsequent events. Get your edge here!

Thanks for another great set review. I always love set review time, and listen to every one the day they come out as I love getting an in-depth crash course on a set, and even though I don’t always agree with your assessments of cards, I love that I get to listen in on two great limited players discussing the merits of every card! Looking forward to this new limited environment, thanks for giving me a leg up on the competition!

Question: Does the following Creature seem playable in limited: 3B for a 3/3 horror that said “can’t block, can’t be blocked, hexproof, when this creature attacks and isn’t blocked, defending player may sacrifice a nonland permanent or discard a card. If that player does, prevent all combat damage Tormenting horror would deal”?

I’m using this hypothetical creature to illustrate another way of looking at Torment of Scarabs, and while not a perfect analogy it seems a close enough comparison to warrant investigation. clearly they differ in some key ways (they can can use enchantment removal on ToS), but I think ToS is actually better because it hits them on their next upkeep, so if they didn’t have the mana and enchantment removal to use the turn you cast it, they are gonna take at least one hit from ToS. I get that they get to choose the least painful option, but each instance of the least painful option every upkeep adds up quickly. I see it as sort of like a “death by a thousand cuts” type of card.

All in all, my personal assessment of this card using the quadrant theory is that when you are ahead, this helps apply a difficult-to-remove form of inevitability, so it can help you win even if they find a wrath or other way to disrupt your creatures/reach parity. I give it a C for the ahead quadrant.

when you are at parity, this is a great way to start tilting the game in your favor, by putting that pressure upon their resources that won’t let up if they can’t pull back ahead, and actively hinders them from pulling ahead by draining either a card in hand or creature on board, unless they want to take a lightning bolt to the dome. I’d give it a B- for at parity, as it doesn’t immediately pull you ahead, but it does immediately put a once-per-turn cycle drain upon their resources that definitely adds up if unanswered.

when you are behind, this is horrendous, as it doesn’t alleviate any of the pressure they have you under, and they can probably afford the life-loss if you aren’t putting pressure back upon them. I give it an F for when you are behind. I think this is the biggest weakness of the card, and likely the reason you have such an adverse reaction to the card in the set review. Cards that don’t help you when you are behind definitely have a cost that must be recognized.

When you are in the development stage of the game, how this card is evaluated depends upon the type of deck you’ve constructed. If you don’t start casting things until turn 3 or God forbid 4, this card would be horrible in development, but assuming you’ve cast a creature on at least T2 & T3, if not starting on turn 1 since this is a faster format, this doesn’t seem all that bad. It does affect the board because if they don’t answer it on your turn, the resource drainage begins at their upkeep, and keeps coming until they answer it. If cast on T4 with a couple of creatures on the turns previous, I honestly think Torment of Scarabs can do more damage to their resources (life, creatures, cards in hand) long-term than many 4CMC creatures cast on T4 in limited can, and ToS is harder to interact with for them than a creature would. Given this, I’d give it a C+ if not B- in the development quadrant.

What do you guys think of my assessment of the card? I would love to hear your thoughts on the above. Obviously this is a lot to say on one card, so that may seem silly to some, but a lot of this writing was me exploring how to articulate my thoughts on the card since my initial reaction to it really differed from yours, and I would greatly appreciate your insights into my thought process here and where you agree or disagree with my logic.

I like your assessment, Gathering. In the episode, they seemed to miss that it said “nonland” because they said that the opponent would sack lands to it after taking a couple of hits from it, and I think that’s why they gave it an F. I’d give it an F too if it did not say “nonland”.

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts Mark! I didn’t realize it until my 3rd listen through just now, but you’re right, LSV does say the opponent will just start sacking lands or discarding garbage cards to it, but clearly when they run out of cards, they are gonna be taking 3 to the dome, or saccing creatures.

I think you guys missed Zealot of the God-Pharao, last card in Red, during the review.
I give it a B-, possibly a B in the format ends up being a bit slower. 4/3 for 3R is always solid and on a stalled board it will win the game or put you in a position where you can win the game in only a few turns.